global warming. help
10 December 2007, 04:31 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London Town
Posts: 983
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
global warming. help
I've been reading a lot about this subject this afternoon since Al Gore got the nobel prize today.
I just read this.. http://royalsociety.org/downloaddoc.asp?id=1630
and I read a lot about the swindle arguements, as well as the IPCC docs.
My conclusions are:
It appears that everyone believes the earth is currently warming.
It appears that virtually everyone believes that humans have had an impact in this.
The arguement seem to be how much have humans contributed to this, and the arguments range from negligible to vastly.
My worry is this, I am concerned that I have an agenda in not believing in the significant man made impact, so that I can carry on doing the things I do, blaming governments and being generally all round cynical of it all, but am I just picking the easy way out? Shouldn't I try my best to reduce my carbon footprint? Can it hurt? So what if do my bit and then it turns out that it was a waste of time? Or would I just be doing that to make my conscience feel better?
Confused, but would like to make a decision.
Ted
I just read this.. http://royalsociety.org/downloaddoc.asp?id=1630
and I read a lot about the swindle arguements, as well as the IPCC docs.
My conclusions are:
It appears that everyone believes the earth is currently warming.
It appears that virtually everyone believes that humans have had an impact in this.
The arguement seem to be how much have humans contributed to this, and the arguments range from negligible to vastly.
My worry is this, I am concerned that I have an agenda in not believing in the significant man made impact, so that I can carry on doing the things I do, blaming governments and being generally all round cynical of it all, but am I just picking the easy way out? Shouldn't I try my best to reduce my carbon footprint? Can it hurt? So what if do my bit and then it turns out that it was a waste of time? Or would I just be doing that to make my conscience feel better?
Confused, but would like to make a decision.
Ted
10 December 2007, 04:38 PM
#5
Scooby Senior
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wildberg, Germany/Reading, UK
Posts: 9,706
Likes: 0
Received 73 Likes
on
54 Posts
It is a clever conspiracy to raise taxes as it is only the UK that are stealth taxing its citizens in the name of Global Warming.
Dont you think if there was any definative evidence that man was to blame, and by turning out a light bulb for 5 mins each day would drastically reduce GW, every government would be insisting on action by the populous or by taxing them to death????
just my 2p anyway.
Dont you think if there was any definative evidence that man was to blame, and by turning out a light bulb for 5 mins each day would drastically reduce GW, every government would be insisting on action by the populous or by taxing them to death????
just my 2p anyway.
10 December 2007, 04:41 PM
#6
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Next door to the WiFi connection
Posts: 16,293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's all a clever conspiracy to raise taxes. 
Im with the others anyway, keep up wasting energy by boiling the kettle full etc, Id much rather it get hotter
Lumi, just pressed thumbs down on your post by accident, just in case you wondered why anyone took offence too it lol. Soz
Im with the others anyway, keep up wasting energy by boiling the kettle full etc, Id much rather it get hotter
Lumi, just pressed thumbs down on your post by accident, just in case you wondered why anyone took offence too it lol. Soz
Trending Topics
10 December 2007, 04:50 PM
#8
I remember as a kid at school watching some government made documentry about acid rain and how it was going to destroy our forests, limestone buildings and by 2010 we would all have to wear vulcanised clothes to protect our skin 
China has upped it's sulphur emission to 11 million tons a year but I do not seem to melt when it rains.
China has upped it's sulphur emission to 11 million tons a year but I do not seem to melt when it rains.
10 December 2007, 05:06 PM
#10
To break the mold ... It's not a conspiracy to raise taxes, just a damn convenient excuse which the government can use repeatedly
On a more serious note, any reduction in energy consumption is worthwhile, but will have little overall impact while the worlds population continues to grow and there are so many countries still in "developing" stages.
If goverments were serious about global warming, they would be setting aside serious amounts of money to fund research into alternative energy sources and sharing the findings globally with developing nations. They just don't seem interested unless they can make money out if it, which is a very short sighted view, considering everyone will suffer from the consequences in the end.
The technology is already available to modify the DNA of bacteria to create petrol by absorbing CO2 from the air and using hydrogen atoms from water.
So my question is why the hell aren't they pushing this technology and scaling it up to a useful volume?!!
In case anyone thinks I am telling porkies ... Technology Review: Making Gasoline from Bacteria
On a more serious note, any reduction in energy consumption is worthwhile, but will have little overall impact while the worlds population continues to grow and there are so many countries still in "developing" stages.
If goverments were serious about global warming, they would be setting aside serious amounts of money to fund research into alternative energy sources and sharing the findings globally with developing nations. They just don't seem interested unless they can make money out if it, which is a very short sighted view, considering everyone will suffer from the consequences in the end.
The technology is already available to modify the DNA of bacteria to create petrol by absorbing CO2 from the air and using hydrogen atoms from water.
So my question is why the hell aren't they pushing this technology and scaling it up to a useful volume?!!
In case anyone thinks I am telling porkies ... Technology Review: Making Gasoline from Bacteria
Last edited by STiFreak; 10 December 2007 at 05:11 PM.
10 December 2007, 05:18 PM
#12
It's a bunch or idiots bumbling around. I don't know which side to believe. I tend to go with the no human influence side as I generally think anyone in politics is lying.
It would be nice to have fresh air in cities though
It would be nice to have fresh air in cities though
10 December 2007, 05:27 PM
#13
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Warrington
Posts: 4,554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can come and scrape my windscreen every morning 
10 December 2007, 05:35 PM
#15
We're still coming out of an Ice Age.. the Ice caps have only exsisted for 50,000 years or something - so in actual fact, we're HELPING the planet return to its natural state.
And its all a conspiracy to raise taxes..
And its all a conspiracy to raise taxes..
10 December 2007, 05:40 PM
#17
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10 December 2007, 05:49 PM
#18
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 2,227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe there is a serious issue but there's sod all we can do about it.
The biggest issue, and one never raised as it's too emotive/political, is population control. Population today ~6bn, population by 2040 ~9bn - i.e. we're fecked. Even the efforts of the 3rd world current population catching up with the western world mean we're fecked.
I look at it this way - we are a population out of control in a closed environment with limited resources (the Earth) - at some point, as in all other similar models (e.g. humans on Easter Island), the population growth continues until something horrific happens to make the population collapse. Unless we halt population growth then there's not much use recycling that plastic cup or turning out that light bulb.
The biggest issue is that we're unlocking CO2 that was trapped in fossil fuels millions of years ago. Nothing short of stopping the use of fossil fuels will change this. Planting trees, eating and farting cows etc all make no difference to the amount of CO2 over a relatively short time period. i.e. plant a tree today and it'll re-release the CO2 when it dies in x years time.
I suspect the only answer is to buy a house in a high place, preferably somewhere that isn't predicted to get too hot or head into an ice age and drink/smoke yourself happy
Gordo
The biggest issue, and one never raised as it's too emotive/political, is population control. Population today ~6bn, population by 2040 ~9bn - i.e. we're fecked. Even the efforts of the 3rd world current population catching up with the western world mean we're fecked.
I look at it this way - we are a population out of control in a closed environment with limited resources (the Earth) - at some point, as in all other similar models (e.g. humans on Easter Island), the population growth continues until something horrific happens to make the population collapse. Unless we halt population growth then there's not much use recycling that plastic cup or turning out that light bulb.
The biggest issue is that we're unlocking CO2 that was trapped in fossil fuels millions of years ago. Nothing short of stopping the use of fossil fuels will change this. Planting trees, eating and farting cows etc all make no difference to the amount of CO2 over a relatively short time period. i.e. plant a tree today and it'll re-release the CO2 when it dies in x years time.
I suspect the only answer is to buy a house in a high place, preferably somewhere that isn't predicted to get too hot or head into an ice age and drink/smoke yourself happy
Gordo
10 December 2007, 08:48 PM
#21
Google search the "Milankovitch cycles". That explains global warming/cooling.
Its completely to do with the earth wobbling on its axis. It explains the ice age and why we were once sub tropical. Using his mathematical model, its possible to predict the global climate for hundreds of thousands of years.
Humans have no impact on this and its...
"just a government conspiracy to raise taxes".
Its completely to do with the earth wobbling on its axis. It explains the ice age and why we were once sub tropical. Using his mathematical model, its possible to predict the global climate for hundreds of thousands of years.
Humans have no impact on this and its...
"just a government conspiracy to raise taxes".
10 December 2007, 08:56 PM
#22
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Epsom
Posts: 5,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Greenland was farmed by the Vikings about 800 years ago when it was about 2 degrees warmer than today.
It's all a clever conspiracy to raise taxes (and control your lives).
It's all a clever conspiracy to raise taxes (and control your lives).
10 December 2007, 09:35 PM
#23
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 2,227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Haha - Milankovitch cycles are a theory for 100,000 year changes in climate, not 100 year changes!
But there is a great point on here - if anyone really cared they'd do more than raise TAX
But there is a great point on here - if anyone really cared they'd do more than raise TAX
10 December 2007, 10:10 PM
#24
Guest
Posts: n/a
You know what I think? I think it's all a really not very clever at all conspiracy to raise taxes ...... I mean it's not as if it's not obvious or anything ...!
Oh, and Science & Environmental Policy Project: Press Release Dec 10, 2007
” Our research demonstrates that the ongoing rise of atmospheric CO2 has only a minor influence on climate change. We must conclude, therefore, that attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless. – but very costly" ...
Dave
Oh, and Science & Environmental Policy Project: Press Release Dec 10, 2007
” Our research demonstrates that the ongoing rise of atmospheric CO2 has only a minor influence on climate change. We must conclude, therefore, that attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless. – but very costly" ...
Dave
Last edited by hutton_d; 10 December 2007 at 10:25 PM.
10 December 2007, 10:28 PM
#25
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 5,763
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was a T4 (does that stand for THICK FOUR?) programme on at the weekend (with June Ping Pong) where a bunch of kids where sent into the Arctic Circle (Norway?, in a sail-boat) to see the catastrophic effects of "climate change" (which until recently was known by the more accurate description of "The Weather"!!!).
After marveling at polar bears on a non-snow-covered landscape (a landscape that was obviously created tens of thousand of years ago by wind and rain - not snow), they observed first hand the polar ice-cap collapsing into the sea. They were in tears.
Sadly, nobody on the sail-boat (indoctrination) crew pointed out that this was the exit-point of a glacier into the sea. When glaciers hit the sea, the ice breaks up - OTHERWISE ALL THE OCEANS WOULD BE FULL OF ICE. This actually did happen many thousand years ago, because we were in an "Ice Age" - but now we are not, hence the warmer climes and the opening of the Northwest Passage (which has been totally frozen "since records began" - a mere thirty years ago).
There is no doubt whatsoever, that "It's all a clever conspiracy to raise taxes."!!
mb
After marveling at polar bears on a non-snow-covered landscape (a landscape that was obviously created tens of thousand of years ago by wind and rain - not snow), they observed first hand the polar ice-cap collapsing into the sea. They were in tears.
Sadly, nobody on the sail-boat (indoctrination) crew pointed out that this was the exit-point of a glacier into the sea. When glaciers hit the sea, the ice breaks up - OTHERWISE ALL THE OCEANS WOULD BE FULL OF ICE. This actually did happen many thousand years ago, because we were in an "Ice Age" - but now we are not, hence the warmer climes and the opening of the Northwest Passage (which has been totally frozen "since records began" - a mere thirty years ago).
There is no doubt whatsoever, that "It's all a clever conspiracy to raise taxes."!!
mb
10 December 2007, 10:34 PM
#26
Guest
Posts: n/a
And just found this: ICECAP
"British police said 2,000 people took part in the march. Organisers said they estimated the number at 7,000. Note that organizers had hoped for a vastly greater turnout: Organisers say they hope up to 40,000 people could attend the rally. “Last year we attracted 35,000 people and we hope this will be bigger,” said Phil Thornhill of the Campaign Against Climate Change, which is organising the event"
The Beeb at BBC NEWS | UK | Global rallies focus on climate quoted the organisers "Organisers said 10,000 turned out for the London march and rally outside the US embassy". No mention of the police estimate. Good old Beeb .... I also had to 'search' to find the story when it was on the front page over the weekend ...
Dave
"British police said 2,000 people took part in the march. Organisers said they estimated the number at 7,000. Note that organizers had hoped for a vastly greater turnout: Organisers say they hope up to 40,000 people could attend the rally. “Last year we attracted 35,000 people and we hope this will be bigger,” said Phil Thornhill of the Campaign Against Climate Change, which is organising the event"
The Beeb at BBC NEWS | UK | Global rallies focus on climate quoted the organisers "Organisers said 10,000 turned out for the London march and rally outside the US embassy". No mention of the police estimate. Good old Beeb .... I also had to 'search' to find the story when it was on the front page over the weekend ...
Dave
10 December 2007, 10:51 PM
#28
oooh.. a few hippy would-be-CND-if-it-was-still-trendy types march through london with banners (I hope recycled)..
Presumably a good number of which probably drove there.... the irony.
Presumably a good number of which probably drove there.... the irony.
10 December 2007, 11:08 PM
#29
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Class record holder at Pembrey Llandow Goodwood MIRA Hethel Blyton Curborough Lydden and Snetterton
Posts: 8,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd be more concerned about an overdue eruption from the super volcano underneath Yellowstone park, but the government can't control us via the natural cycles of volcanos - so they decide to go the for the naturally cyclic climate route. Its just a government conspiracy to raise taxes
Last edited by Jay m A; 10 December 2007 at 11:11 PM.
